Court rules against U.S. in Great Lakes wolf caseBy JOHN FLESHER , Associated Press

Last update: September 29, 2008 - 5:14 PM

TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. - A federal court Monday overturned the Bush administration's decision to remove gray wolves in the western Great Lakes region from the endangered species list.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman in Washington, D.C., sided with environmental groups that accused the government of misreading the law last year when it lifted federal protections for about 4,000 wolves in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin.

It was the second setback in a week for the administration's campaign to return management authority to state officials in the two regions where the wolf has rebounded after being driven to the brink of extinction in the lower 48 states.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Sept. 23 asked a judge in Montana to return gray wolves in the Northern Rockies to the endangered list, reversing a proposal to drop them earlier this year. That followed the judge's order in July barring plans for public wolf hunts in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming.

"The Bush administration's repeated attempts to push the limits of the Endangered Species Act have been decidedly rejected by the courts," said Amy Atwood, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity.

The biggest practical effect of Friedman's ruling is to nullify newly established state policies allowing people in the Great Lakes area to kill wolves attacking livestock or pets. It also bars the states from permitting hunting or trapping of wolves, although none had done so.

"In our judgment, this is an animal that deserves protection," said Howard Goldman, central states regional director for The Humane Society of the United States. "It has taken so long for their numbers to recover, we've got to be very careful before removing any protections from them."

Jason Holm, spokesman for the Fish and Wildlife Service, said its attorneys were studying the ruling to determine the next step.

"We are disappointed," he said. "The service and our partners worked toward recovery of the gray wolf in the western Great Lakes for more than three decades" and considered the population "robust enough that it no longer needed Endangered Species Act protection."

The wolf occupies only about 5 percent of its historical range, which once took in most of the continental U.S.

But the animal has recovered steadily in the western Great Lakes region since the late 1970s, migrating from Minnesota into Wisconsin and Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Surveys this year turned up 2,921 wolves in Minnesota, at least 537 in Wisconsin and 520 in Michigan.

In a lawsuit challenging the Fish and Wildlife Service's 2007 decision, The Humane Society and several other groups claimed the government had acted illegally by designating Great Lakes wolves as a "distinct population segment" that could be bumped from the endangered list without regard to the species' nationwide standing.

Friedman said it was unclear whether the 1973 Endangered Species Act permits such a move. He ordered the agency to provide a better explanation of its interpretation and respond to concerns that its policy could undermine the goal of protecting the wolf. In the meantime, he returned the wolf to the federal endangered list.

"Little confusion or inefficiency will result from reinstating a regulatory regime that was in place from 1978 to 2007, particularly given the fact that state and federal wolf management authorities have been working in tandem for years," the judge said in his opinion.

But wildlife officials in the three states said the ruling would be disruptive.

The problem with timber wolves is they are predators and they may take an occasional deer in order to survive. They are competing with another deer predator-humans. According to the DNR, there are fewer hunters each year. The wolves can offset the lack of hunting pressure and the overpopulation of deer. Too bad so many hunters think the deer population is their personal property.

Timber wolves are a native species to northern Wisconsin, there presents restores the normal ecological balance to the woods. Since humans are more aggressive predators than a wolf, the wolf will always be the loser without government protection.

Killing deer isn't the problem (although the DNR has driven the deer herd so low and the bears so high in some areas that even the wolves would starve).

The problem is the wolves killing cattle, other farm animals, dogs, etc. in some areas. There was actually a group that paid a graduate student to "train" captive wolves not to eat cattle out west and then release them so they would "teach" the other wolves. Anyone want to take a guess how well that turned out??? (gotta love environmentalists from big cities)

Another issue is the fact that the wolves have (in some areas) already reached or exceeded the numbers that everyone agreed were sustainable when the whole project started. Because this was overturned they'll have a much harder time controlling the population numbers in those areas now.

I think the real solution to the wolf problem would to trap all the excess wolves in the northern part of the state and release them around Madison and Milwaukee. It is only fair that they share the success that has been achieved in bringing the wolves back to the state. Perhaps a few could also be released around Chicago also.

The National Institutes of Health has just released the results of a $200 million research study completed under a grant to Johns Hopkins.The new study has found that women who carry a little extra weight live longer than the men who mention it.

Ask any one in the know about human population growth and its impact and they will tell you the issue is the fact that the humans have already exceeded the numbers that are sustainable

By your line of thought, instead of controling wolves, the DNR should should start an open season on humans.

The National Institutes of Health has just released the results of a $200 million research study completed under a grant to Johns Hopkins.The new study has found that women who carry a little extra weight live longer than the men who mention it.

I say let them be. If they get in the way, then deal with it as I would. Bang!And what I mean by getting in the way: threatening livestock, children, pet, people. Otherwise, if they need to eat deer, let them eat deer.

I'm not some naturist weirdo, but why kill when it isn't necessary? As for deer. F'them!

I've encountered bears while riding my mountain bike near town. I carry a gun. I've never had to use it. They're usually more afraid of a screaming person barreling down at them fast on a mountain bike...they make a bee-line out of harms way.

But some day when I'm not in a hurry, I'll take on of those bears. Probably next season.